About your Search

20130113
20130121
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
industry and manufacturing. the second on deficit reform, and the third on improving government performance. the participants here today include brookings scholars, outside experts, and private sector representatives and leaders. our discussions will reflect a lot of the research that goes on here at brookings, and you will be able to find a number of examples of that research outside the auditorium where you came in. my recommended particular, the work of our metropolitan program on ideas on how to revitalize manufacturing, and also the work of art government studies program on how to make innovation-based economy. the growth through innovation project is an example of what we're doing increasingly here at brookings, and that is undertaking both research and public events and outreach that draw from multiple programs of research pro-guns here at the institution. and we have three of our research programs represented here today. the growth through innovation project is led inside a brookings by darrell west of our government studies program, bruce katz, of our metropolitan program of our ec
of the government, about the size of the deficit, and a lot of back and forth over these three issues. i think i just want, without going into all the different ramifications, i want to say one word about the debt ceiling, which is that not everybody understand what the debt ceiling is about. the debt ceiling, raising the debt ceiling, which congress has to do periodically, gives the government the ability to pay existing bills. it doesn't create new deficits. it doesn't create new spending. so not raising the debt ceiling is sort of like a family, which is trying to improve its credit rating sank i know how we can save money, we won't pay off credit card bills. not the most effective way to improve your credit rating. it was the very slow solution to the debt ceiling in august 2011 i got the u.s. downgraded last time. so it's very, very important that all these issues are important but it's very, very important that congress take necessary action to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a situation where our government doesn't pay its bills. >> a number of people have expressed concern about how much
the narrow lens of deficit reduction so the larger goal of economic growth and maintaining the health and economic security of all americans. now, there's no question that reducing the federal deficit is a worthwhile goal. nobody's going to argue with that. we need to address our nation's long term physical problem. we understand that. they affect all of us. most importantly our children and our grandchildren. their future would not be bright if they are drowning in red ink of budget deficits and soaring national debt. we understand that too. however, their futures will not be very bright if they can't afford health care or if they can't afford a quality education or if they don't have the opportunity to attain long term financial security. leaving them with less economic security by weakening social security and medicare would be just as bad, and for many people, it would be worse, and if we weaken social security and medicare to the point of their parents and grandparents to no longer live with dignity and purpose, we will be risking their futures as well. as a nation, we have to br
if it is called, then it has to face the economic tasked with value facing 20% and a huge fiscal deficit thanks to the patronage of the last year than you are going to start to see a lot of the chickens come home to roost and see it break apart. this is very similar after -- basically he was forced to engage in a austerity package around 1952 until 55 and that is what basically got him kicked out. and then of course after 1944 he died and you begin to see that internal battle, then you begin to see diffraction happening but not until -- >> that is a perfect segue because i want to bring it back to russell for the question. we talked about politics and about constitution, institutions. we talked about the economy although we've alluded to this aspect to it let me ask you to take off your journalist hat and put on your markets have and ask a simple question is venezuela going to buy, sell or hold? >> i think what we are going to see in the short term is a great deal of turmoil to reverse of markets -- capital flees some certainty. so, right now you have on uncertainty because nobody knows what's
that deal with the deficit and also have a vision and the stability in what is going to happen in terms of the voting of economic growth. estimate what the peak to the cut a piece of that. the spending on health not necessarily the biggest cost of the deficit right now but if you look at 20 years, for 30 years it is the alligator that is going to swallow everything. i was on a panel last week and there was a lively argument around should we raise the age for medicare, should we try to change the system and have a fee for service, has the obama administration done a lot to lower the cost of health care going forward so we don't need to do much more? what do you think is in practical terms what needs to be done on health care if you poll people they say we all want to cut medicare celerity want to go dealing with that piece of the puzzle? >> that reminds me when i was in graduate school i went to study foreign policy and was right around the time they balanced the budget and i thought my gosh what am i going to do? so i realized the long-term problems were still there and i had to make a
trillion of deficit reduction. lowered the deficit to 1.4% of gdp in 2022, stabilize the debt by 2015. it even further reduced discretionary spending. it builds on health reform savings and called for social security reform, and provided specific things to do to get social security solvent for the next 75 years here and also include fundamental tax reform that raise revenue. and raised quite a bit of revenue, 2.4 trillion of that 5.4 trillion would have been revenue, but revenue not required raising rates, but revenue that would come through reforming the tax code, reducing preferences, exclusions that are shot through the tax code, to actually be able to reduce rates and raise additional revenue. for anybody that wanted can you really do that, remember tax expenditures are running $1.2 trillion a year. we are spending more for the tax code than we are through all of the appropriate accounts of the federal government. this is what happens to the deficit in the share of gdp under the fiscal commission plan. you can see a dramatic improvement. the fiscal cliff plan, and what was just ad
for the taxpayers' use or the expression goes, to reduce the federal deficit. >> thank you, gentleman. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. hastings. >> i don't have any questions. >> thank you very much. without a doubt of funds, which i'm working on, -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask that the gentleman, i know he's speaking on behalf of the constituents when we bring the amendment to the bill, the size of the package with the addition of your amendment, becomes larger than many entire appropriations bills. $60 billion. that's larger than homeland security appropriations bill. mr. king, that's larger than the financial services appropriation bill. that's larger than the state department foreign operations appropriations bill. these are bills from which this congress deliberates for months. hearing the chairman say before you came up to testify that he was committed to making sure that your folks get those things that they need. hearing the priorities that everyone has laid out, knowing these are not optional things that are needed, these are mandatory things that are need
of all, we've had some deficit reduction. the president laid out a couple days ago. we had over $2 # trillion. we had a trillion and a half that came from previous actions, and then we added just a few days ago some further deficit reduction through increased taxes on the very wealthy of this country. we already begun to undertake deficit reduction. to use that as a reason to use the debt ceiling as a weapon is really playing with fire. they say pay some bills and not pay others. we've never tried that before. >> host: is it feasible? >> guest: i don't think so. which bills? social security? veterans? people out fighting for this country? which bills do you pay? we never tried that. i think the president put it so well. this is not a debt beat nation, really, and i think common sense is likely to prevail within the republican ranks. i know, if i might say so, if not firsthand, second hand, that the leadership within the house republican caucus, not all of it, i think some of it realizes that the potential consequences. >> host: if president obama won, so to speak on the fiscal clif
began the fiscal year with $876.05 in the bank and a projected deficit of $500 million, even after taxes had been increased. i think a number of you remember that as well. working with the legislature, we ended last fiscal year with a $500 million ending balance, a billion dollar swing to the good and we paid off all of our callable bonds. good job, legislature. [applause] we are now in a strong fiscal position. the last decade was unfortunately a lost decade where kansas lost thousands of private sector jobs while the rest of america grew. in december 2010, our unemployment rate was 7%. today our state's unemployment rate is 5.4%, the 10th lowest in america, and wichita state university projects we will add more than 24,000 private sector jobs in the state this year alone. that's good news. [applause] when i started as governor, we had the highest state income tax in the region, now we have the 2nd lowest and i want us to take it to zero. look out texas, here comes kansas. [applause] in the previous decade, we had population losses of more than ten% in nearly half of our counties. today
deficit hawk. the republican senate committee budget guru, and he is offsetting most of the first slice. the bill's actually two pieces, 17 billion and 34 billion. and he's offsetting the 17 billion portion with a across-the-board cut. so it'll be interesting to see if that passes or not. you know, all democrats will vote against it, and i suspect that it will fail. but it'll be interesting to see. for him it's important because they want to establish the principle that emergency spending needs to be offset with spending cuts. which is something that democrats are very afraid of, because they feel like every time there's a disaster, republicans use it as an excuse to go after domestic programs, social services and so forth. so that'll be an important precedent, and then we'll see what happens in the senate. you know, we'll probably see a house/senate conference on the bill or some ping-ponging between the chambers and probably delaying final enactment. >> host: yeah. and the washington times reporting this morning that the conservative group for growth is threatening to punish members w
debate. i'll be very concrete. other such on the whole reason we have large budget deficits is because the economy collapse. and in classic washington fashion, this is the case with the schoolhouse is on fire and rather than focusing on putting the fire out, everyone in washington runs out to use as much water. the budget deficit is the economy right now. that's the to 50 minute like that but that's the truth. i think it would be great if an organization with strength and integrity of a or b. would stand up and make the point because we're having an entire budget that is basically premised on something that is not true. >> i agree with you. we do have underlying pieces of our economy that need to get fixed. but massive change in spending and we've already cut a trillion dollars over all in spending. we've cut medicare as part of the political their act. we have to be really careful and just solving these problems by cutting spending. .. >> we do it in a way that supports families and the population that we have. >> let me just add to that. i agree with you, but unfortunately, most of t
veer -- inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put at a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to dig out of that. it is very difficult for organizations, especially in a crisis response, to think about just releasing the information before it's asked for and remove that deficit. i've been involved in several situations where the information was available and the information was understandable and probably mitigated some of the concerns, but because of the way the companies in the government work, it was difficult to make that transparent and then catching up with that with the american public is really, really difficult. nancy and marcia, we had talked about this with jay a lot. one of the problems we have in mental anguishing impacts -- measuring the impacts of the spill in the gulf is the lack of the background of the presence of hydrocarbons as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. in the context of moving beyond the direct aims of the research that's going to be conducted with the bp money, what do you think the lar
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12